WTM vs RNR

For growth investors, White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd.

(WTM) is the stronger pick with 15. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 9. 4% for RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. (RNR). White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd. (WTM) offers the better valuation at 4. 9x trailing P/E (18. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd. (WTM) a "Hold" — based on 2 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd.

(WTM) is the cheapest at 4. 9x versus RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. at 5. 3x. On forward P/E, RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. is actually cheaper at 7. 5x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. wins at 0. 25x versus White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd. 's 1. 36x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.

(RNR) delivered a total return of +87. 1%, compared to +69. 7% for White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd. (WTM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RNR returned +176. 4% versus WTM's +160. 8%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.

(RNR) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 05β versus White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd. 's 0. 35β — meaning WTM is approximately -784% more volatile than RNR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. (RNR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 12% versus 13% for White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd.

(WTM) is pulling ahead at 15. 0% versus 9. 4% for RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. (RNR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd. grew EPS 379. 1% year-over-year, compared to 60. 8% for RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.. Over a 3-year CAGR, RNR leads at 36. 2% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd.

(WTM) is the more profitable company, earning 40. 9% net margin versus 21. 0% for RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. — meaning it keeps 40. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: WTM leads at 49. 1% versus 31. 5% for RNR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — WTM leads at 53. 7%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.

By this metric, RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. (RNR) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 25x versus White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd. 's 1. 36x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. (RNR) trades at 7. 5x forward P/E versus 18. 5x for White Mountains Insurance Group, Ltd. — 11. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis.

In this comparison, RNR (0.

6% yield) pays a dividend. WTM does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.

(RNR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 05), 0. 6% yield, +176. 4% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (RNR: +176. 4%, WTM: +160. 8%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

Both stocks operate in the Financial Services sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

RNR pays a dividend while WTM does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.